ok, I agree that dissing dissent for the sake of it isn't healthy. But I don't agree that "supporters miffed by the rebranding" were universally castigated. Most of the replies I saw were respectful of their position but asserted the contrary view.

Sh*t - I'm not going to make any apologies for arguing my point robustly if it's something I've put a lot of thought into and the other poster clearly hasn't. I mean look at that guy you just quoted earlier - he's saying that Darkcoin has a "liquidity problem" because its coin supply is less than a competing cryptonote currency. What a completely clueless statement - as I pointed out in the other thread, liquidity alludes to the amount of monetary value available in markets at a given price range, not some arbitrary count of monetary units.

You think the Argentinian Peso is more "liquid" than the US Dollar because it has smaller monetary units ? Darkcoin/DASH already has 4 times the liquidity of its nearest cryptonote competitor simply by virtue of having 4 times the marketcap.

Despite this nonsense, people like you join in the hysteria and go and post this crap in big red fonts in an ANN thread and you accuse us of "cult-like" behaviour ? Are you kidding ?

Then you bang on about cryptology left right and centre and this is bullet proof and that that's full of vulnerabilities and da..da..da. Meanwhile the devs behind those technologies are quite happy to farm out to "3rd parties" the most critical and vulnerable portal in the whole of this space - the wallet - because it's "not a priority" ! Talk about building a castle and then leaving the drawbridge permanently open with pot of gold at the door.

Cult-like behaviour, sure. It's everywhere. It isn't a question of having it or not, it's a question of which one has a chance of delivering a return on your investment.